‘Prince From Another Planet’ samples

Well for giggles I googled "SoundCloud Downloader" and the first one that comes up only downloads content to - guess what - 128kbps mp3s. I downloaded the short audio samples I have previously uploaded (from wave files) such as my Just Because repaired intro that I did back in January, and my Tupelo/MRS compare from recently. Yip - both came down as a 128kbps mp3s.

This is hilarious, you googled SoundCloud Downloader, and this proves what? Just because it only converts to 128, this proves my software does too? Yeah, that's logical !!!!

And you admit knowing the software only did 128 but you continued to download it and use it to do the test to get 128 anyway. Yeah, logical again.

Why didn't you continue and find a program that will do the job for you? I think what you did was find the software that would give YOU the result YOU wanted Mathew.

As I have already told you I have double checked my software with a couple of downloads and mine downloads exactly what the original is. [As I knew it did] Sorry if this isn't good enough for you Mathew. And no I am not going to give out info on what I use, it is not needed, if you were serious you would have found proper software that does the job by now, there are many, or no maybe you don’t want to spend money, fair enough, but then why carry on with nonsense?

Guess what? I don't use SoundCloud Downloader!

I understand there is much debate about 128 vs 320 and CD etc but the facts are the file is 128 kbps medium quality as I have written This is all I am going to say as you will find a way to keep craping on - I am going to continue to repeat myself. Then you want to argue that this is going to sound good, well maybe to you but I can hear the difference, but maybe as I said it is not so much the kbps but the quality setting. Whatever it is, it is sure fatiguing on my ears, as interestingly it is to others.

And you admit knowing the software only did 128 but you continued to download it and use it to do the test to get 128 anyway. Yeah, logical again.

Hold your horses there David, you're going off the deep end again and this usually ends bad! How do you think I discovered that particular piece of software only creates 128kbps downloads, hmmm? Right - by downloading my files.

And no I am not going to give out info on what I use

Yeah - of course you're not, why would you?

Whatever it is, it is sure fatiguing on my ears, as interestingly it is to others.

Which has nothing to do with the bit-rate of the samples. How many more times does this need to be stated?

Gotta agree with Mike, this looks worrying indeed, it makes no odds whether you go back to the master tapes, remix, remake, reboot, or whatever, if you simply set a limiter on the mix and basically volume level it , MUSIC SET TO MAX !
Just listen to 30#1 for proof, completely remixed but, VOLUME WARS !!!!!!!!!
So if its 128/FLAC/WAV ? who cares, the damage is done .......

Well for giggles I googled "SoundCloud Downloader" and the first one that comes up only downloads content to - guess what - 128kbps mp3s. I downloaded the short audio samples I have previously uploaded (from wave files) such as my Just Because repaired intro that I did back in January, and my Tupelo/MRS compare from recently. Yip - both came down as a 128kbps mp3s.

This is hilarious, you googled SoundCloud Downloader, and this proves what? Just because it only converts to 128, this proves my software does too? Yeah, that's logical !!!!

And you admit knowing the software only did 128 but you continued to download it and use it to do the test to get 128 anyway. Yeah, logical again.

Why didn't you continue and find a program that will do the job for you? I think what you did was find the software that would give YOU the result YOU wanted Mathew.

As I have already told you I have double checked my software with a couple of downloads and mine downloads exactly what the original is. [As I knew it did] Sorry if this isn't good enough for you Mathew. And no I am not going to give out info on what I use, it is not needed, if you were serious you would have found proper software that does the job by now, there are many, or no maybe you don’t want to spend money, fair enough, but then why carry on with nonsense?

Guess what? I don't use SoundCloud Downloader!

I understand there is much debate about 128 vs 320 and CD etc but the facts are the file is 128 kbps medium quality as I have written This is all I am going to say as you will find a way to keep craping on - I am going to continue to repeat myself. Then you want to argue that this is going to sound good, well maybe to you but I can hear the difference, but maybe as I said it is not so much the kbps but the quality setting. Whatever it is, it is sure fatiguing on my ears, as interestingly it is to others.

As a not technologically inclined person - pls explain what this means

Here's some info on SoundCloud as of June, 2010:

SoundCloud accepts all the standard audio formats, with support for MP3s at any bit-rate, WAV and AIFF files at just about any sample rate. There’s support for FLAC and OGG too. Playback on the site itself is at 128kbps MP3, for near-instant streaming, but downloads are in the original format — making this the perfect platform for on-line collaboration.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun10/a ... dcloud.htm

Here's some info on SoundCloud as of June, 2010:

SoundCloud accepts all the standard audio formats, with support for MP3s at any bit-rate, WAV and AIFF files at just about any sample rate. There’s support for FLAC and OGG too. Playback on the site itself is at 128kbps MP3, for near-instant streaming, but downloads are in the original format — making this the perfect platform for on-line collaboration.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun10/a ... dcloud.htm

Yes I know, thanks for proving me correct in that i have downloaded a 128 file.

Hold your horses there David, you're going off the deep end again and this usually ends bad! How do you think I discovered that particular piece of software only creates 128kbps downloads, hmmm? Right - by downloading my files.

Mathew, as usual you don't answer the difficult questions - Okay so you found out after you downloaded it, so why do you post the results of the predictable test?

[Yip - both came down as a 128kbps mp3s.]

Please answer how is it relevant what 'SoundCloud' Downloader does and why do you use that to suggest my software does the same?

Whatever it is, it is sure fatiguing on my ears, as interestingly it is to others.

Which has nothing to do with the bit-rate of the samples. How many more times does this need to be stated?

I have no idea, but as I have pointed out there is the quality setting that is set at 'medium' which is only 50%, can it be this? I have stated this as a possibility, you don’t answer this, but whatever the reason, 128 files always sound awful to me. But why do you go back to this, because you can’t defend you nonsense claim that my software downloaded it different to what is online. Below I show you prove of what is played online!!!

Here are the facts from SoundCloud and another website article about how it works.

Quote : From here : Under 'Audio Streaming & Sharing' : 4th paragaph.

SoundCloud accepts all the standard audio formats, with support for MP3s at any bit-rate, WAV and AIFF files at just about any sample rate. There’s support for FLAC and OGG too.

Playback on the site itself is at 128kbps MP3, for near-instant streaming, but downloads are in the original format - making this the perfect platform for on-line collaboration.

So playback on the site is 128, but downloads are in the original format. They mention downloads are in the original format - but not all songs are available to download - See SoundCloud website about downloads



It doesn't prove what Sony uploaded but it does show what we are listening to online, anything more than 128 will get playback problems, this is why the internet radio stations play at 128 or less [Graceland Radio 96 - ElvisMatters Radio 128 - etc] and why SoundCloud does the same. So it is not possible to prove that Sony uploaded as the website only plays 128 and they have not given a download option, so all we get is 128 medium quality..

And any software program [mine included] can only copy what is being played.

But anyway it is 128 that everyone is hearing. And in ‘medium quality.

As a not technologically inclined person - pls explain what this means

Here, let me:

In computer science and information theory, data compression, source coding, or bit-rate reduction involves encoding information using fewer bits than the original representation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_compression#Audio

In digital photo terms it would be like taking a large picture and making it smaller - its the same picture, but the smaller image has less resolution in it when blown up to the same size again as the original image. In audio its essentially the same deal - take your original audio file and make it smaller through data compression - it still presents the audio when played back, but not as well as the original file.

Dynamic range compression is a totally different bag and is not related at all to the above. Dynamic range is the difference between the quietest part of a recording, and the loudest. Basically, dynamic range compression squashes those highs and lows together, which depending on how high the compression settings are can result in a sound where the quiet and loud parts are no longer so quiet, or so loud. Everything is kind of at the same level. Long term exposure to dynamically compressed audio on high settings results in a fatiguing effect on the ears.

Clearly the audio that is going to appear on Prince From Another Planet has been subjected to dynamic range compression in mastering (or mixing - certainly in mixing actually, as this is part of this particular mixer's method). It has nothing to do with mp3 settings on SoundCloud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression

I don't trust samples....at any rate. I'll just wait till I get the real deal in my hands.

Yes I know, thanks for proving me correct in that i have downloaded a 128 file

Never said you didn't.

Okay so you found out after you downloaded it, so why do you post the results of the predictable test?

It isn't a predictable test - at the time of downloading I would not know what I would get, until I got it! Basically, you've misread my earlier post hence why you are hanging onto this odd aside. I posted the fact, and how I discovered it myself.

Please answer how is it relevant what 'SoundCloud' Downloader does and why do you use that to suggest my software does the same?

So far you have failed to say what "your software" is - for some inexplicable reason. My post simply highlighted that a common SoundCloud downloader presented its downloads as 128kbps mp3s. I didn't say you used that piece of software. Further research has now shown that a 128kbps mp3 is all one will get, when ripping the stream from SoundCloud, and offers no evidence as to what the native source file an uploader has used is.

I have no idea, but as I have pointed out there is the quality setting that is set at 'medium' which is only 50%, can it be this?

No - please see my post above for an intro to dynamic range compression.

I have stated this as a possibility, you don’t answer this, but whatever the reason, 128 files always sound awful to me. But why do you go back to this, because you can’t defend you nonsense claim that my software downloaded it different to what is online. Below I show you prove of what is played online!!!

Mine is the pursuit of truth, nothing more. Your accusation was that Legacy uploaded crappy 128kbps mp3s and that this has resulted in fatiguing audio. I have shown that no, Legacy have (most likely) not uploaded crappy 128kbps mp3s, that you downloading a 128kbps mp3 is the result of SoundCloud's own streaming makeup and that the ear fatigue you (we) are experiencing is from the dynamic range compression built into the mix/mastering of the music.

Here are the facts from SoundCloud and another website article about how it works.

Quote : From here

Yeah - thanks for linking the same article I already posted.

So playback on the site is 128, but downloads are in the original format.

Only those downloads direct from SoundCloud - when the user allows them, not those ripped from the SoundCloud stream.

They sound great! Thanks for posting...

I agree. I've been hearing samples on Sirius / XM and it is impressive. It's going to be even more impressive when I sit down and put on the Bose headphones.

Looking forward to it.

Yes I know, thanks for proving me correct in that i have downloaded a 128 file

Never said you didn't.

BS you didn't, you are unreal Mathew, twisting everything. YES you did. You know what i meant. You said ...

I suspected as much. ElvisAustralia has stated Legacy has uploaded 128kbps mp3s. Since the native files do not appear to be available for download from SoundCloud I'm of the opinion that Legacy have NOT uploaded 128kbps mp3s but rather, whatever piece of software he has used to rip the audio from those links has output the files at 128kbps in mp3 format.

Which you have maintained and tried desperatly to prove with all these odd things like 'Yip - both came down as a 128kbps mp3s' from the SoundCloud downloader .
Okay, so can you now admit you were wrong?

It isn't a predictable test - at the time of downloading I would not know what I would get, until I got it! Basically, you've misread my earlier post hence why you are hanging onto this odd aside. I posted the fact, and how I discovered it myself.

That's true, but again why then post the result with 'Yip - both came down as a 128kbps mp3s' which means you are saying you proved your point.

So far you have failed to say what "your software" is - for some inexplicable reason. My post simply highlighted that a common SoundCloud downloader presented its downloads as 128kbps mp3s. I didn't say you used that piece of software. Further research has now shown that a 128kbps mp3 is all one will get, when ripping the stream from SoundCloud, and offers no evidence as to what the native source file an uploader has used is.

I have darn good software, and I am not about to tell you what it is thank you! if it was somehow relevent i would tell you, but it is irrelevent. But more rubbish from you 'post simply highlighted that a common SoundCloud downloader presented its downloads as 128kbps mp3s'.

What further research? is this your code for you made a mistake? This is your excuse what is the relevance of what a SoundCloud downloader does? Nothing. But as with the point above you were trying to prove your claim whatever piece of software he has used to rip the audio from those links has output the files at 128kbps in mp3 format.

Mine is the pursuit of truth, nothing more. Your accusation was that Legacy uploaded crappy 128kbps mp3s and that this has resulted in fatiguing audio. I have shown that no, Legacy have (most likely) not uploaded crappy 128kbps mp3s, that you downloading a 128kbps mp3 is the result of SoundCloud's own streaming makeup and that the ear fatigue you (we) are experiencing is from the dynamic range compression built into the mix/mastering of the music.

You have proven nothing. As I concluded my last post 'So it is not possible to prove that Sony uploaded as the website only plays 128 and they have not given a download option, so all we get is 128 medium quality'.

It is NOT possible to conclude or prove anything in regard to what Sony uploaded, THAT IS THE TRUTH. Yet you clain you have proven this? No.

But it was not the main 99% of my original point, my point was that the file was a 128 MP3 and that is what was played online.

But you could not resist saying my software converted it down to 128 I REPEAT AGAIN whatever piece of software he has used to rip the audio from those links has output the files at 128kbps in mp3 format.

Yeah - thanks for linking the same article I already posted.

Ahh, cheap shot, clearly from the length of my article I had typed it out well before you, and then went into much more detail.

Only those downloads direct from SoundCloud - when the user allows them, not those ripped from the SoundCloud stream.

Why do you repeat what I closed with as if you are the one saying it first?

I said in my last sentence 'And any software program [mine included] can only copy what is being played'.

Do you know how to say you are wrong Mathew, No I don't think so.

You say you are about truth, you are about you, argumentative, clearly wrong, and can't say so.

Anyway what can one do with you, you will continue to twist things.

The important facts are as I stated :

1/ As I alerted everyone to the fact first, something Mathew probably didn't like, the audio is 128 kbps medium quality audio, meaning the quality is just about as poor as you can get.

2/ This is no way to judge the sound quality of this release.

3/ There is NO WAY the ear fatigue you (we) are experiencing is from the dynamic range compression built into the mix/mastering of the music. This is done will all CDs although they are doing it much less and more carefully today. Now Mathew is getting people worred about a process that has been done to CDs ever since they came out. Nothing to be concerned about. But today, unlike 25 years ago, the sound is very good.

When is this set released ?

hurry up and bring it out now

3/ There is NO WAY the ear fatigue you (we) are experiencing is from the dynamic range compression built into the mix/mastering of the music. This is done will all CDs although they are doing it much less and more carefully today.

Really? You can't be serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

Just as I said Denny, I agree with you totally. If these samples are a good representation of what we'll be getting in the near future, it's volume wars all over again. I can't possibly believe this is where Sony and Ernst want to go with this. I want to believe these samples are a joke.

When is this set released ?

November 13, 2012 - http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/ ... her+Planet

Gee-whiz David, you certainly have a bee in the bonnet about this. Simple facts: you said Sony where stupid enough to have uploaded 128kbps mp3s "set to medium". They didn't. You said this low bitrate is causing the ear fatigue. It isn't.

As for the latest nugget:

3/ There is NO WAY the ear fatigue you (we) are experiencing is from the dynamic range compression built into the mix/mastering of the music. This is done will all CDs although they are doing it much less and more carefully today.

Why don't we have a face-palm smiley?

Gee-whiz David, you certainly have a bee in the bonnet about this. Simple facts: you said Sony where stupid enough to have uploaded 128kbps mp3s "set to medium". They didn't. You said this low bitrate is causing the ear fatigue. It isn't.

As for the latest nugget:

3/ There is NO WAY the ear fatigue you (we) are experiencing is from the dynamic range compression built into the mix/mastering of the music. This is done will all CDs although they are doing it much less and more carefully today.

Why don't we have a face-palm smiley?

David and Matthew could you please take this to PM? It is soooooo boring and also highly off topic. Thank you!

I'm sorry to say that this is not what was played the other night. What I heard was a crisp crystal clear sound mix of the evening show, where drums jumped out of the recording and the base rumbled. These samples are flat as a pancake and have no power or thump to them. If these are indeed the so-called "remixed" versions, then this is the biggest ripoff in American music history of CD sales. There is no sound improvement whatsoever from the originals to these "remixes". If anything, they are remastered at best. Maybe they delayed it to revamp their sticker to say REMASTERED FROM ORIGINAL TAPES. Because they are in no way remixed.

Another thing to note. Elvis sounds like he's singing from the NY subway station. I swear I have heard 10th generation copies that sound better than this crap.

Seriously? Your going to slag off a release before its even out? Unbelievable.
Do we know whether the clips are remastered rather than remixed I.e the basic legacy edition and not the Brauer versions? Either way wait for the actual release and judge on a decent hiding not by an mp3 file on the net.

Jamie

Jamie, you have to understand that this is one of those threads where people whine about releases that they haven't heard or seen yet. It is one of those magic rituals of Elvis community. It happens with every major release.

David and Matthew could you please take this to PM? It is soooooo boring and also highly off topic. Thank you!

Its highly on-topic actually. Off topic is a boring post like this, that suggests I need a hearing test because I don't love the audio from those samples:

Hmm, can't say I'm enamoured with the mixing and processing (though the bass solo in Polk Salad sits better) - the band sound right up front, almost too dry, against Elvis' vocal which seems distant, less defined, and away from the band in comparison - almost like the band sounds overdubbed on top of the live vocal. At this stage I'm more keen to know what Afternoon Show mix will appear on the standard Legacy Edition of Madison Square Garden.

If you serious I suggest a doctor to review your hearing...

[quote)Jamie, you have to understand that this is one of those threads where people whine about releases that they haven't heard or seen yet. It is one of those magic rituals of Elvis community. It happens with every major release.[/quote]

You got that right!

David and Matthew could you please take this to PM? It is soooooo boring and also highly off topic. Thank you!

Again, well said.

How on earth anyone can be so definitive about a release based on an 128pb MP3 file stream is beyond me. There are so many things that come into the equation sound quality wise not least how individual Media Players can influence the sound, Some are much better than others. The proof will come out when the release does and not before unless Sony pop up a WAV file for us all to download. Despite the negativity from some I am still really looking forward to this release, although, I've had enough BS from this thread for now

Again, well said.

How on earth anyone can be so definitive about a release based on an 128pb MP3 file stream is beyond me. There are so many things that come into the equation sound quality wise not least how individual Media Players can influence the sound, Some are much better than others. The proof will come out when the release does and not before unless Sony pop up a WAV file for us all to download. Despite the negativity from some I am still really looking forward to this release, although, I've had enough BS from this thread for now

Anyone who has read my original post will know that I have not made a definitive conclusion about this release, but have rather reviewed the audio samples provided in the opening post - they are what this thread is about!

you made this conclusion;

I have shown that no, Legacy have (most likely) not uploaded crappy 128kbps mp3s, that you downloading a 128kbps mp3 is the result of SoundCloud's own streaming makeup and that the ear fatigue you (we) are experiencing is from the dynamic range compression built into the mix/mastering of the music

Jamie

What software?

As noted 128kbps sample rate will no more fatigue the ears than 320kbps or 1411kbps. File compression and audio compression are not the same thing.

They are not the same thing but the file compression is negligible in comparison to the audio compression applied during the mastering. In other words I don't expect the lossless version of these samples to sound any less audio-compressed. Unless these are promo/radio samples (which sometimes have different mastering) the real thing will sound very close to these MP3 samples.

Jamie - that's a later conclusion around the SoundCloud samples in context of the debate with Elvis Australia. I have not (as implied) written off the yet to be released product itself.

They are not the same thing but the file compression is negligible in comparison to the audio compression applied during the mastering. In other words I don't expect the lossless version of these samples to sound any less audio-compressed.

Exactly, and agreed. I will still await the product itself for further review though, and I remain very curious about what mix/mastering of the Afternoon Show will appear on the 2 disc Legacy Edition of Madison Square Garden.